silkworm

I have a girl here. She said she'd try it. But you need to be more specific on what you mean by kneeling? Any other specifics you can provide?

Well, copper in solution is blue. Probably a similar thing is happening in part 1, but I can't think of the color of iron in solution at the moment. However you should have definitely had the same thing happen when using sulfuric acid. Sulfuric and nitcric acids are commonly used to seperate metals from their oxides , and also used to strip metal jackets placed on by electroplating.

That seems a little bit fake, but the concept is interesting. I do enjoy this one though. http://www-ed.fnal.gov/projects/scientists/jesse.html

Thank you so much for that link. I wasn't aware of the guy, but now I'm a fan (even though he looks like an Attenborough). Here's a page with links to other multimedia stuff of his on the web. http://www.reitstoen.com/randi.php I'm watching a 2 hour lecture he gave to Princeton right now. He's an excellent speaker, very intelligent and entertaining. Thanks again.

No, it's just they're focusing on this because it's funny like when a clown dies and there are very few numbers involved. I'm talking about it because I think this White House is using it for a little vacation. I heard the Katrina report either came out or is coming out right? That won't be a good time for them. So, naturally, they shot a 78 year old man to get a little space. It fits the profile.

Because mass and weight are entirely different things. The weight of an object changes with the acceleration it feels (F=ma), and an object will weigh less on a small planet than it will on a larger planet if it has the same mass. Mass can not be created or destroyed and most be conserved. Weight is a force that changes with acceleration.

It's always the media's fault. They're the most important part of a healthy democracy and they've been failing for years.

So I'm thinking this poor old guy took some buckshot in the face to take attention away from the war budget this year (which is a direct result of how diplomatically inept this administration is) in a sort of a Wag the Dog type move. Any thoughts?

There are many ways to commercially produce oxygen. I can think of 4 right now. 1. Electrically decomposing water. 2. Decomposing potassium chlorate with heat. 3. Oxidizing hydrogen peroxide with potassium permangante in acidic solution. 4. Fractional distillation of compressed air. I don't know which is the most popular.

All I'm going to add further is simply a reiteration. Organization is everything in writing effectively. You have to really focus on it. If I were you, I'd start from scratch and really structure it before I wrote anything. I'd also make sure to be respectful and not appear biased. We all like to bitch about ID, but you're writing this to enlighten ID supporters right? ID supporters are your target audience? You don't want them to tune out. I do like that you put homologous structures in there. But because these people are who they are, I'd use explainations rather than terms. Do you know what I mean? Here, I'd also like to mention a little trick that National Geographic did recently, and I was delighted by it as I sat in a doctor's office. The cover said something like, "Could evolution be wrong?" I of course grabbed the copy as soon as possible wondering who lobbied them, but I was happy to see a big fat NO followed by an explaination. It probably made more progress at enlightening a scientifically disinterested, yet willingly combative, audience than anything else that comes to mind. National Geographic obviously understood the bait they were giving because ID advocacy groups pass a lot of goods that simply give (albeit misrepresented) ammo to fight the evolutionists with and National Geographic had to know that with their reputation to the layman and offering more ammo would be an irresistible pick up to ID supporters. I just hope a lot of them bought it for the cover.

CFCs are incredibly stable and they travel. Freon is virtually indestructable in the troposphere and, the best I understand it, drifts to Antartica where it hangs out on clouds of ice until special circumstances allow it to escape to the stratosphere where it is decomposed by uv radiation. It destroys the ozone layer when it decomposes into Cl- radicals, setting off a chain reaction that can destroy several thousand 03 molecules/Cl- radical via these reactions: Step 1: [math] \ce{CFCl2 ->[\text{uv}] CF2 + Cl-} [/math] Step 2: [math] \ce{Cl- + O3 -> ClO- + O2} [/math] Step 3: [math] \ce{ClO- + O -> Cl- + O2} [/math] And the new Cl- radical in the last reaction (step 3) can proceed in a new set of reactions that destroy the ozone layer, so it doesn't take a lot of CFC in the stratosphere to do a lot of damage. It's actually pretty well established that CFCs (Freon) are what destroy the ozone layer. Sorry to your friend.

Is that just saying 0.9999999/0.99999999 = 1?

I'd poke your friend in the eye and give him a titty twister. -4 can be considered as more than -5 in the sense that if you owed $4 instead of $5 you'd have more money, but who cares?

Okay, first of all, I'd like to mention that writing anything down is a waste of time because what makes IDers so special is that they don't read anything. A 30 second commericial with explosions and pretty, but not slutty looking, women would perhaps do the best at convincing your target audience. I used to write professionally so I'm a bit of an angry little bastard when it comes to looking at other people's work. I've reviewed what you've done and I'd seriously go back and look thoroughly at it's organization. It appears to suffer greatly. Don't rush it. You'll be fine. But really think about organization here. Some other notes: Part 1: To say that The Discovery Institute is an ID supporting group is perhaps a bit of an understatement. And with the presentation the way it is, you mention ID by itself before defining intelligent design as ID. The last sentence of your first paragraph is interesting, as it appears that you're divorcing intelligent design from (Old Testament) religion entirely. What did Heraclitus say? Was he the L Ron Hubbard of back then or what? I'd add to your part 2 that a theory must be built entirely on natural explainations, an intense point here in Kansas. I don't like what you used for clarification in number 2 of why ID is lame. Probably a better statement there would be, "Science can not test intelligent design because it can not control for the supernatural, or what doesn't really exist." I'd point out that Behe is a PhD. You don't want to seem biased. I like that you appear to be aiming this at people who know nothing about science, for example ID supporters. But still I'd take the simplification a step further and I would even consider dropping section 3.2 because that may be a tough one to grasp for the audience. In section 3.3 I'd watch your tone a little bit. Because of who the audience is I wouldn't say an intelligent designer does this or that, I'd just talk about intelligent design as the bad idea that it is. I'd also talk about the sneaky motivation it has for changing from creationsim. I do like where you went with the prostate points, and I'd include something about hip bones in whales, which generally freak IDers out. I'd totally reconsider your conclusion. Please don't think I'm being critical of you. I'm actually being nice. This is how I support other writers. My advice would be to keep it simple and respectful to ignorance while at the same time being critical of ID and the fact it isn't science. Really watch your tone and organization. You're dealing with a very sensitive and very ignorant group of people here. Good luck.

The Bible (any version) does a pretty good job at debunking the christian perspective of Creationism, but only when put up against reality. I know you asked for new stuff, but because you are where you're at I'd get down the basic concepts and then start out with the early stuff. Darwin's On The Origin of Species I think is a great book and provides insight not only on natural selection but where Darwin was and how aware he was of it. Good luck.

Sure it would work, but if you're not isolating the environment from the rest of the atmosphere you're just giving the fire more fuel. If you can isolate this fire, when the carbon dioxide created will eventually prevent further combustion and the fire will choke itself out. However, this would be true whether or not you ad the carbon, meaning if you just isolated the fire from the atmosphere the increase in carbon dioxide will eventually choke the fire out. As a note, since organic (carbon based) molecules are really the only things that combust, using it to fight a fire probably isn't the best option. Also, this is my 200th post and I am now officially an atom. Have a drink on me.

All of those are strong acids. Sulfuric is diprotic so the dissociation of the second hydrogen has a Ka, but its works out to not being too important when calculating pH in practical applications. Molarity doesn't determine how weak or strong an acid is, but the molarity of a strong acid does affect pH. Meaning, the more of a strong acid per liter of water, the lower the pH. A strong acid is a strong acid because it gives up it's proton readily in aqueous solution. Basically, as much HCl as you put into solution is as much H+ you're going to get. A weak acid doesn't give up this proton as readily. Meaning, you're going to get less H+ than as much you put in. I hope that helps. Also, note that you have 3 and 6 moles of these acids. You're going to need molarity which is the moles/liters of water.

Hey, what part of the brain is that? Is it the part right above your left ear? I swear, when I stop smoking after awhile it wakes back up and it feels like a draining sink is forcing a fishes mouth to open and close quickly and wiggle right there. And then, life is good. And I do admit, I turn into an animal (grrr, if you know what I mean) and I need to sleep much less.

You could make isoamyl acetate. It's artificial banana flavoring and what bees use as an alarm scent.

Smoker. Sounds like someone needs an intervention. I've been looking for the study I say about posture and mental function, but I have had no luck. Sorry, I hate it when this happens.

I hate it how everyone takes cloning and attaches the plot of some work of fiction to it. I don't care about the "ethics" of this, and furthermore who is the president to decide what science should and shouldn't be allowed to do? Nature is not a democracy. I see cloning like this. Say you're into bikes. And you go awhile categorizing bikes like "That's a little girls bike, that's a mountain bike, etc." Sure you get to recognizing bikes, and you can tell what kind of bike is what kind of bike and you recognize some parts like the handlebars, the seat, and the chain. But then you actually build a bike, and that provides a whole new level of understanding. We have a responsibility to proceed with human cloning. Not because we're trying to make the world's greatest football team or create a master race, but to receive the insight about ourselves that it is very likely to provide. There are no moral issues involved with human cloning because we have a responsibility to do so. The moral issue comes when you start producing them for economic value, but that has more to do with slavery and greed than anything to do with science. I agree, let's not have one. I have trouble recognizing this one's authority in the first place. It's too bad that life is a game to you. The opportunity for human advancement far overrules such adolescent behavior. We're America. To continue to be so we have to keep going. What's sickening is in a similar phenomenon in a Physics classroom I was democratically voted wrong that hydrogen does not have a neutron. No, we were not talking about deuterium. That wasn't a moral issue, but democracies seem to go with whatever sounds good.

Shoot! I'm not sure what you're talking about specifically anyway.

I always wonder this when I'm on a date and haven't had enough drinks yet. My conclusion was that black hole + bermuda triangle = marriage.

Sounds about right. I bet most of the loss is from lethargy caused by circulatory issues. The part of my brain right above my left ear seems to be asleep when I'm smoking regularly too. I'm on my second day of quitting cold turkey because I could use the lucidity. I'm not sure about this, but I don't think smoking causes brain damage. It's probably all circulatory. I hate doing this, mentioning things I don't have a link for, but I read somewhere that bad posture can make you lose up to 30% of your mental ability because of circulatory issues. I think they're right. I notice a difference. But I could be cuckoo from the withdrawl.